Metaphysics book3 c2

There is a lengthy discussion on whether one needs particular knowledge of an art to discuss the first cause with-in the art's framework.

The argument seems to be against this. First knowledge of first causes is discredited in mathematics. Mathematics deal with 'things' that are immaterial and motionless. The first cause which gives the source of motion cannot be understood by a mathematical art.

Then there is a discussion about arts that study nature. Since nature is material, it does not have the causes in it. Demonstrative knowledge of nature would just demonstrate knowledge of particulars rather than the whole deal.

Or I'm going to skip ahead. It seems like these questions will be addressed later. And I'm not making heads or tails of this.